|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:21 pm
Captain_Shinzo I know what you mean and I feel it is actually the worst part of a belief.
On one hand, it defines who you are and sticks you in a group. However, it doesn't define your likes.
Internet Rule 18 - Anything that can be labeled can be hated.
If you are defined JUST by your belief, it is harder to meet people because, usually, a Christian doesn't want to hang around an Atheist. Or the Atheist who doesn't want to hang out with a Christian. razz That internet rule 18 is a truism of life, I would say. I should point out that belief stances are not limited to just religion, religion is just the easiest to point at. There are ideologies that function as belief stances as well.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:30 am
rmcdra Captain_Shinzo I know what you mean and I feel it is actually the worst part of a belief.
On one hand, it defines who you are and sticks you in a group. However, it doesn't define your likes.
Internet Rule 18 - Anything that can be labeled can be hated.
If you are defined JUST by your belief, it is harder to meet people because, usually, a Christian doesn't want to hang around an Atheist. Or the Atheist who doesn't want to hang out with a Christian. razz That internet rule 18 is a truism of life, I would say. I should point out that belief stances are not limited to just religion, religion is just the easiest to point at. There are ideologies that function as belief stances as well.
It is the truth, however sad it may be.
I could understand this. However, it is easier to use a form of religious beliefs than any belief stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:15 am
Captain_Shinzo XD It all depends. To be honest, I think if that is all you would know, it would be pretty easy to make a yes or no decision. True. I used to be a real a** to "the other" for a long time. I'm still learning not to be since everyone is now "the other" and I am me XD. Quote: It is the truth, however sad it may be. Can be but I try to see this as you can't please everyone, unless you wanna be bland but I'm not a fan of blandness myself so XD. Quote: I could understand this. However, it is easier to use a form of religious beliefs than any belief stance. Yeah it is. I just wanted to point out that those without religions are exempt from this either razz .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:28 am
rmcdra Captain_Shinzo XD It all depends. To be honest, I think if that is all you would know, it would be pretty easy to make a yes or no decision. True. I used to be a real a** to "the other" for a long time. I'm still learning not to be since everyone is now "the other" and I am me XD. Quote: It is the truth, however sad it may be. Can be but I try to see this as you can't please everyone, unless you wanna be bland but I'm not a fan of blandness myself so XD. Quote: I could understand this. However, it is easier to use a form of religious beliefs than any belief stance. Yeah it is. I just wanted to point out that those without religions are exempt from this either razz .
True. It also makes a pretty cool lesson for some.
True, true...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:36 am
I'm having some trouble understanding why there seems to be an attitude that using one's religion as a sense of identity is a bad thing. IMHO, if you are NOT doing this, one's religiosity is superficial. I don't at all intend "superficial" to have any negative connotation here, but some find that true religiosity is about a way of life and by its very nature identifies who you are. We tend not to look at it this way as much in America, thinking it's all about beliefs, not practices (way of life).
Rmcdra, I think this is where you make a questionable assumption in assuming religiosity is focused on belief and not practices. I also question the attitude that beliefs (or practices) are necessarily very mutable. I think we can see plainly that some traditions are flexible and adapt while others are very rigid. Both strategies work and serve their respective individuals well and I'm not quite seeing how these qualities in of themselves make forming your identity based on religion a bad or flawed thing to do.
Lastly, identifying with a particular religious affiliation, while it does tend to create a "in group" and "out group," doesn't always lead to the sort of intolerance you suggest. As others have already made note of, in group and out group dynamics would exist regardless of claimed religiosity and have sine the beginnings of human history. I guess in summation, I sort of understand what you're getting at, but I don't quite follow your argumentation since I'm seeing a number of exceptions and potential flaws in the argument. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:30 am
Starlock I'm having some trouble understanding why there seems to be an attitude that using one's religion as a sense of identity is a bad thing. IMHO, if you are NOT doing this, one's religiosity is superficial. I don't at all intend "superficial" to have any negative connotation here, but some find that true religiosity is about a way of life and by its very nature identifies who you are. We tend not to look at it this way as much in America, thinking it's all about beliefs, not practices (way of life). I think you are missing the point of the OP. Imagine person who defines themselves as an athlete. They are able to run a mile in under 4 mins, bench press 1000 lbs, etc... Then one day they either become too old or worse injure themselves too badly to do these things. Are they still "the athlete" if they can't do these things? I was trying to not deal with practices associated with belief stances but since you brought it up, if there is not a belief or reason behind an action then why do it? Quote: Rmcdra, I think this is where you make a questionable assumption in assuming religiosity is focused on belief and not practices. I also question the attitude that beliefs (or practices) are necessarily very mutable. I think we can see plainly that some traditions are flexible and adapt while others are very rigid. Both strategies work and serve their respective individuals well and I'm not quite seeing how these qualities in of themselves make forming your identity based on religion a bad or flawed thing to do. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having belief stances. I think having belief stances are very useful but over identifying yourself with your beliefs leads to a limitation of the self and can be exploited by manipulative groups. Quote: Lastly, identifying with a particular religious affiliation, while it does tend to create a "in group" and "out group," doesn't always lead to the sort of intolerance you suggest. As others have already made note of, in group and out group dynamics would exist regardless of claimed religiosity and have sine the beginnings of human history. I guess in summation, I sort of understand what you're getting at, but I don't quite follow your argumentation since I'm seeing a number of exceptions and potential flaws in the argument. xd I wasn't talking about intolerance and I'm wondering where in the world do you get this from? What I'm talking about is identity and one's religion. If one's very identity hinges on believing something or practicing something then what happens to one's identity if facts are presented that contradicts one's belief, if one can no longer perform a particular practice, or the practices just don't work for you anymore. What I'm trying to get at is that we are (I should hope) much more complex individuals that identifying who we are based on what belief stances we hold is over simplistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:52 pm
rmcdra I think you are missing the point of the OP. Imagine person who defines themselves as an athlete. They are able to run a mile in under 4 mins, bench press 1000 lbs, etc... Then one day they either become too old or worse injure themselves too badly to do these things. Are they still "the athlete" if they can't do these things? I was trying to not deal with practices associated with belief stances but since you brought it up, if there is not a belief or reason behind an action then why do it? Maybe I am missing the point... hence I did say at the beginning I was confused. xd But to address this question, I'd still consider "the athlete" part of their identity, as one's past is part of one's identity. One can make a distinction between one's current roles and roles long past. I think there's room for both in the concept of identity. On the second part about beliefs/reasons behind actions, I'm extremely skeptical of the plausibility of actions arising from a vacuum. People simply do not do things without some sort of reason or cause. But I suspect you mean "reason" in the more lofty sense of the term, in which case the argument becomes more grounded in value judgements and I'm not sure I want to go there right now. rmcdra I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having belief stances. I think having belief stances are very useful but over identifying yourself with your beliefs leads to a limitation of the self and can be exploited by manipulative groups. If I drive to my social activity tomorrow evening, I also can die in a car accident. Potentialities are ever present; I'm not sure if I find this to be sufficient logic to throw having religion as part of one's identity into a bad hat. Nor do I find "limitations on the self" to be sufficient logic, as there are also ever present limitations on the self. For someone it might be religion, for another it might be family, friends, income level, genetics, whatever. Limits can be a good thing. Without them you fly all over the place. wink But yes, I do agree that at times identifying as one's religion can cause problems. The keyword though, is CAN... it doesn't always do this. It really depends on the person in question and the situation. rmcdra What I'm trying to get at is that we are (I should hope) much more complex individuals that identifying who we are based on what belief stances we hold is over simplistic. ... question I don't think there are many individuals who use a single descriptor to identify themselves, be it their religion or otherwise. I don't believe I've run into a single one, actually. So maybe this is part of the confusion source for me, as this strikes me as a strawman and therefore a non-issue. Or something? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:06 pm
Starlock Maybe I am missing the point... hence I did say at the beginning I was confused. xd But to address this question, I'd still consider "the athlete" part of their identity, as one's past is part of one's identity. One can make a distinction between one's current roles and roles long past. I think there's room for both in the concept of identity. Exactly but there are individuals who do hinge there very being on that past role where if they cannot be that role then one's very sense of self is lost. Quote: On the second part about beliefs/reasons behind actions, I'm extremely skeptical of the plausibility of actions arising from a vacuum. People simply do not do things without some sort of reason or cause. But I suspect you mean "reason" in the more lofty sense of the term, in which case the argument becomes more grounded in value judgements and I'm not sure I want to go there right now. I meant reason in a generic sense. Even if a reason is unsound or based on intuition its still a reason. I'm glad to hear that you don't think actions happen in a vacuum. I was seriously starting to worry about you. Quote: If I drive to my social activity tomorrow evening, I also can die in a car accident. Potentialities are ever present; I'm not sure if I find this to be sufficient logic to throw having religion as part of one's identity into a bad hat. Nor do I find "limitations on the self" to be sufficient logic, as there are also ever present limitations on the self. For someone it might be religion, for another it might be family, friends, income level, genetics, whatever. Limits can be a good thing. Without them you fly all over the place. wink But yes, I do agree that at times identifying as one's religion can cause problems. The keyword though, is CAN... it doesn't always do this. It really depends on the person in question and the situation. But I'm not talking about potentialities. There are people that will hing there sense of self on their beliefs. I also am proposing that when an individual get offended by mere questions (I'm not talking about attacks or questions that are worded to be offensive) or when someone doesn't agree with this individual's beliefs. The individual is equating the their beliefs with themselves. If I'm wrong in this being the reason please share with me why I am wrong in thinking this. Quote: ... question I don't think there are many individuals who use a single descriptor to identify themselves, be it their religion or otherwise. I don't believe I've run into a single one, actually. So maybe this is part of the confusion source for me, as this strikes me as a strawman and therefore a non-issue. Or something? sweatdrop But there are descriptors that are so big that they become equated with self. I guess this would be more common among high schoolers and young college students (the age 16-24 range) since this age group is still trying to find out who they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:12 pm
Starlock, no one is saying that your beliefs don't help to define you or that they shouldn't be considered a part of who you are. Just that they shouldn't be all that you are. You shouldn't make a single belief into the sole defining characteristic of your being, and you shouldn't take questions or disagreements aimed at that belief as attacks agains yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
